TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corp.

Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corporation

Siren Realty Corp. v. Biltmore Productions Corp., 27 A.D.2d 519 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 6, 1966
Citations
27 A.D.2d 519275 N.Y.S.2d 1881966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2941

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order, entered September 2, 1966, denying the motion of plaintiff-appellant for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, *520 with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion is granted. Plaintiff mortgagee brought suit to foreclose a purchase-money first mortgage upon property owned by defendant mortgagor. Mortgagor admits that it has defaulted in payments of principal, interest and real estate taxes but claims that oral agreements between the parties bar this action. Allegedly, the mortgagee agreed not to foreclose the mortgage until such time as the property was condemned if the mortgagor was financially unable to meet the payments. The purported consideration for this promise was the mortgagor’s agreement to continue to use the property for the production of motion pictures, plays, and television shows. The affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion by the president of the corporate mortgagor is eonelusory and does little more than restate its pleadings. Triable issues of fact are not established merely by repeating the allegations of the pleadings (Pribyl v. Van Loan & Co., 261 App. Div. 503, 504 , affd. 287 N. Y. 749 ). Beyond that, it is not clear when the parties entered into the oral agreements. The answer, however, suggests that they were contemporaneous to the execution of the mortgage and, as such, may not now be raised to vary the terms of the written agreement (see Mitchill v. Lath, 247 N. Y. 377, 381-382 ). Appeal from order entered on September 2, 1966, denying plaintiff’s motion to modify defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, dismissed, as academic, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Mitchill v. Lath, 160 N.E. 646 (N.Y. 1928) 130
Pribyl v. Van Loan & Co., 261 A.D. 503 (1941) 16
Pribyl v. Van Loan Co., 40 N.E.2d 36 (N.Y. 1942) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list